Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Libyan War
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 87, 88, 89 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

When has the UN not agreed to a war the Americans wanted? I'm being serious. I don't know.

Iraq!

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:46 pm Post subject:

That's a complicated situation. Point taken. The UN represents the strategic interests of the major players. Not morality.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:52 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

That's a complicated situation. Point taken.

The UN represents the strategic interests of the major players. Not morality.

I agree. That's why I said UN authorization, when a country is not suffering from imminent or present threat or attack, is a necessary but insufficient condition.

Moreover, you can have a just war that lacks legal authorization, although I can't easily imagine a just but illegal aggression.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:55 pm Post subject:

Right, so I want to see the US go to the UN and ask this question: We want to use the CIA and other covert means to introduce a Western political system and values into Iran. What y'all think. China?

wintermute

Joined: 01 Oct 2007

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded Former CIA analyst on CNN outlining why the intervention in Libya is not a good idea. In brief: - arming and training takes time that we may not have. - if the effort fails, and Gaddafi remains, (about 50-50 in his estimation), then "the American-led West" will have to either admit they were wrong or put troops on the ground, . - "Both parties love to intervene in other peoples' business when there are no US interests at stake, and where we spend enormous amounts of money at a time when we are nearly bankrupt"

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject:

wintermute wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded

Former CIA analyst on CNN outlining why the intervention in Libya is not a good idea.

In brief:
- arming and training takes time that we may not have.
- if the effort fails, and Gaddafi remains, (about 50-50 in his estimation), then "the American-led West" will have to either admit they were wrong or put troops on the ground, .
- "Both parties love to intervene in other peoples' business when there are no US interests at stake, and where we spend enormous amounts of money at a time when we are nearly bankrupt"

Well, this particular 'other people's business' was / is a guaranteed mass murder or even genocide. We all know what Ghaddaffi is capable of.

Anyway, besides this, whether right or wrong, a decision has been made to intervene. Now that the international community has intervened, there is no going back, as again, we all know what Ghaddaffi is capable of. With him remaining at the helm, he will (1) revert to terrorism again (as he has already threatened) (2) Destabilise the region and harm the fledgling democracies in North Africa with dangerous implications for the region at large, particularly Israel (3) Kill thousands more of his own people.

Now I am of course not surprised that there are many in the naysayer camp that do not give a flying f*** about (3) but we all need to be concerned about (1) and (2), and now that a decision has been made, we might just as well get behind it, because from where we are now there is no going back.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:33 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

Well, this particular 'other people's business' was / is a guaranteed mass murder or even genocide. We all know what Ghaddaffi is capable of.

Ask your precogs if Crosby will be back for the playoffs. I've got office pool decisions to make.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:36 am Post subject:

wintermute wrote:

He was the head of the Bin Laden unit.

Here's another interview:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/04/05/michael-scheuer-13/

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:42 am Post subject:

Quote:

and now that a decision has been made, we might just as well get behind it, because from where we are now there is no going back.

And when this mission goes t#ts up, can we all agree that these 'humanitarian' missions, whereby we displace one corrupt Arab regime with another corrupt regime, while blowing the country to smithereens, probably aren't a good idea.

By the way, does anyone seriously believe this ragtag bunch of 'rebels' will be able to institute anything resembling a civil democracy?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:29 am Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

The humanitarian explanation is a political platitude. Different groups respond to different talking points. The mainstream right gets all excited about freedom (!) and will support bombing for freedom. The mainstream left is susceptible to talk about humanitarianism.

During the buildup to the invasion of Iraq I noticed that the Canadian war mongers (National Post) used language starkly different from the American mongers. The Post ran articles daily for months about democracy and dominoes etc. The Americans were reading about WMD's. The Post never pushed the WMD story aggressively. Canadians were not attacked on 9/11 so the fear factor wasn't as effective. Canadian conservatives are more inclined towards institutionalism.

It's like selling a car. The goal is the same, but the pitch changes depending on who is buying. A sedan can be sold to a man with talk about the engine and to a woman about the safety.

Then we have the partisan hacks. Obama's loyal core would support him if he decided to invade and occupy New Zealand. Bush had a similarly loyal group.

It's all very annoying.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:08 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

bigverne wrote:

The Libya War is a really tough call, and I don't think the Chomsky Manufacturing Consensus thesis really applies. The American people are really ambivalent about the war, anyway, so this talk about car salesmen misses the mark.

Mises, you're fighting the last war.

----------------

The Chinese, meanwhile, are upset about the strategy that dare not speak its name. They wanted a no-fly zone, and are angry that the US, UK, and France have hit Qaddaffi forces and supply lines. My basic sentiment is that the Chinese can suck it.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:16 am Post subject:

Quote:

Mises, you're fighting the last war.

It's a regional war with several theaters.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject:

Now for Zhongnanhai's perspective, courtesy of the China Daily.

Western countries should abandon illusion of world domination (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-04/02/content_12269663.htm)

Quote:

In fact, despite the excuse of protecting the interests of the civilians, these Western countries are seeking to protect their own, including not only economic interests but also the established illusion of dominating the world held by some Western leaders. To them, the hegemony is more important than the U.N. Security Council resolutions and Libyan civilians. The illusion has prompted France, the United Kingdom and the United States to unscrupulously launch the war against Libya.

It is dangerous to resort to violence in dealing with international affairs. History has proven that violence only makes things more complicated. Western countries are not unaware of the hidden risks, but as long as they hold fast to the old high-handed attitude towards the rest of the world, they will continue to just pay lip service to resolving disputes peacefully through talk.

Certain Western countries have learned their lessons when trying to dominate the world in the past, and repeating the same old mistakes will not be good for the long-term interests of Western countries. They need to better adapt to a changing world. If they are too stubborn to change their outdated mindset, they will only hurt themselves while hurting others.

What's behind the Libya intervention?

Quote:

[T]he thing that Western countries can least accept about Qaddafi is the political road on which he has been stepping. For years, Qaddafi has been advocating unifying country and regions, building powerful army and political organizations, oil nationalization, mobilizing middle and lower class public, carrying on land reforms and fighting against Western intervention. Although these goals are hard to realize, they are clearly in the direction of a revival of the Arab world.

Complete propaganda, btw. The West was content with Qaddaffi's turn-around, right up until he vowed to use air power on civilians.

Another unnecessary war

Quote:

The war in Libya, said Kucinich, is one of a series of dangerous missteps by the US administration that would result in an economic, diplomatic and spiritual disaster. With the cost of countless lives and huge expenditure unfolding in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war in Libya is doomed to be a costly war with at least $100 million a day.

These wars also show an America that is intent on reshaping the world in the image of a democracy that is distorted in the US, said Kucinich. "Distorted by unequal distribution of the wealth brought about by an unfair tax system, unregulated monopoly capitalism, unemployment, lack of access to health care, inadequate housing, poor educational prospects, instability of retirement programs � and the cost of war."

Kucinich joins the ranks of useful idiots. Too bad. I kinda liked him.

Duplicity repeats itself in Libya

Quote:

To make matters worse, the coalition, under NATO's command from March 24, has gone beyond the UN mandate and bombarded Gadhafi's residence. That brings US President Barack Obama into focus. The Pentagon says Gadhafi is not a target, but US missiles have struck his compound. Perhaps Obama wants to take out the Libyan leader. Didn't he say two weeks ago that Gadhafi "must leave"?

The missiles were British. But lies and misinformation are part and parcel of so-called Chinese journalism.

Quote:

Double standard has been part of US leaders' policy.

Duly noted. Any country that stands for anything will be hypocritical.

Quote:

And the way the international media has been reporting on the Libyan tragedy - bombarding us with the success of the coalition forces and the Libyan rebels and the destruction of Gadhafi's forces, instead of questioning the very basis of Western military strikes - raises some valid fears. One of them is which country will be targeted after Libya. The attack seems to be a warming to national leaders who are hated by Western firms, and countries not yielding to Western interests, especially those with vast oil and other natural reserves.

Apparently only the West imports oil.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:04 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Now I am of course not surprised that there are many in the naysayer camp that do not give a flying f*** about (3) but we all need to be concerned about (1) and (2), and now that a decision has been made, we might just as well get behind it, because from where we are now there is no going back.

I would add this:

Support for dictatorships has long been an embarrassment. It would take a fool to turn down the opportunity to get behind democratic reform when a native reform movement lands in your lap. What do they say about gift horses?

No matter what choice was made, it was going to be risky. There was no safe choice.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Support for dictatorships has long been an embarrassment. It would take a fool to turn down the opportunity to get behind democratic reform when a native reform movement lands in your lap. What do they say about gift horses?

No matter what choice was made, it was going to be risky. There was no safe choice.

Mises is right, though. The West went into this half-cocked and half-blind, are backing rebels who will need months of training (Sun Tzu: I've seen wars won clumsily but not slowly), and may prolong the misery.

I agree with you about there being no good choice. Benghazi was going to be a bloodbath, and America would've been blamed for standing idly by.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 87, 88, 89 Next
Page 22 of 89

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe